Rat Line

[Virgil Showlion]

New developments in the Benghazi debacle, shedding light on who, what, and why. This should be of particular interest to posters such as billisonboard, whose skepticism that high-level administrative malfeasance was involved was deafening.

The actual article is quite long, and the document it cites is even longer, but below are excerpted the introduction and the crux of the issue (bold by me):

Read Seymour Hersh’s devastating account of Obama’s Red Lines and Rat Lines and weep for the Republic. It is no more.

For the first time in a half-century American voters actually elected the “peace candidate” in 2008 and sent Obama to the White House to end the interventionist foreign policy that had lead to disaster in Iraq, and, implicitly, to wind down the vast war machine that had been left over from the Cold War. The latter had been converted by the Bush’s and Clintons into an armada of invasion and occupation that had rained death and destruction from Bosnia to Baghdad to Kandahar for no reasonable or justifiable purpose of national security. These aggressions were simply what a war machine does, making up rationalizations as it goes along.

But the Warfare State was not about to let peace happen. Soon Obama learned the Washington pivot, rehired the core of Bush’s War Cabinet and became enmeshed in the “national security” plots and schemes which were in the pipeline when he arrived at 1600 Pennsylvanian Avenue— much like JFK inherited the disastrous Bay Of Pigs invasion. Like the despicable Alan Dulles, he inherited ambitious scoundrels like so-called General David Petraeus, who soon had him convinced that the non-sensical and bloody “surge” in Anbar Province had been a roaring success, and that it should be exported to the quagmire in Afghanistan.

...

Upon the bloody end of the Gadhafi regime, Obama than turned to making war on the Assad regime in Syria—without a sliver of logic as to why intervention in an age old sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Alawites would make the citizens of Nebraska one wit safer. This time he did it through the establishment of a CIA annex in Benghazi to gather and accumulate the former Libyans dictator’s lethal arsenals for transfer to the Syrian rebels—many of whom where jihadists and terrorists of the type we were allegedly trying to erase from the earth.

Moreover, as Seymour Hersh explains, the Benghazi weapons were then transited by means of an illegal CIA “rat line” through Turkey to the rebels. And the rat line was absolutely illegal because all CIA covert operations since the 1970s have been required as a matter of law to be disclosed to the Congressional leadership—-for whatever that has become worth in the post Frank Church era where shaking down the military-industrial complex for campaign money, rather than thwarting its propensity for rogue operations, has become a bipartisan pursuit of choice.

But our constitutional scholar-in-chief apparently had no problem splitting hairs. The “rat line” was deemed a “liaison” operation with England’s MI6 and thereby exempt from reporting requirements. So when the rat line operation blew up in Benghazi during the middle of the Presidential campaign in September 2012 in the incident that lead to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, the Obama White House just lied. No, the consulate where the deadly attack occurred was not a CIA annex and weapons depot; and, no, we never supplied any weapons to any rebels in Syria. All a pack of lies.

I guess you did need one more committee, Bill.

The article is viewable in its entirety here.

[billisonboard]

If I thought for a minute that John " Bomb,  Bomb, Bomb. Bomb, Bomb Iran.  " McCain was leading an attempt to end US shenanigans,  I would be all over it. Another congressional dog and pony show isn't necessary to show what is obvious.

[Tennesseer]

How can someone's skepticism be deafening.  They have expressed an opinion or responded with information.  If you read it, you heard it.  You just did not care for the response.  

Only someone's silence or non-comment expressing disapproval (or if you want to really push it, a simple lack of interest in the subject at hand) can be deafening (as you appear to be using the word).

[djAdvocate]

not that confident in Hersh's impartiality.  but thanks for posting.

edit: i fundamentally disagree with Hersh's appraisal of Obama as a "peace candidate".  anyone who thought so, was not paying attention.  it is precisely why i didn't vote for him.  he was for escalating Afghanistan and drawing down Iraq = the same thing Bush was for.

[billisonboard]

Apr 14, 2014 11:19:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not that confident in Hersh's impartiality.  but thanks for posting.

edit: i fundamentally disagree with Hersh's appraisal of Obama as a "peace candidate".  anyone who thought so, was not paying attention.  it is precisely why i didn't vote for him.  he was for escalating Afghanistan and drawing down Iraq = the same thing Bush was for.

I voted for him in 2008 because I wanted to watch people's heads spin with him being elected. I didn't vote for him in 2012 because of the surge in Afghanistan (plus really disappointed with his Supreme Court nominations).

[mmhmm]

Interesting read.  Seymour Hersh is one hell of an investigative reporter, but he's often just a little loose with the truth; especially, when he has an agenda he's trying to promote.  I can't tell where this "article" came from.  If it was actually published in the New Yorker, I'd give it more credibility than if it came from a speech Mr. Hersh made somewhere.  The New Yorker vets this guy's work very strictly, but there's no leash on him when he gives speeches.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 14, 2014 11:19:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not that confident in Hersh's impartiality.  but thanks for posting.

edit: i fundamentally disagree with Hersh's appraisal of Obama as a "peace candidate".  anyone who thought so, was not paying attention.  it is precisely why i didn't vote for him.  he was for escalating Afghanistan and drawing down Iraq = the same thing Bush was for.

I think with careful analysis of his 2008 rhetoric, one would reach this conclusion. But the American public and indeed the world at large (the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, even) more or less had him pegged as wanting to shut down Iraq, wanting to shut down Afghanistan, wanting to prevent future occupations and excursions, but perhaps willing to stay the course for a year or two in some places so that the US could withdraw in an orderly fashion.

Nobody but nobody, including his starkest critics, expected him to roar ahead like a carbon copy of "the decider". Sen. McCain was supposed to be that guy.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 14, 2014 12:19:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 14, 2014 11:19:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not that confident in Hersh's impartiality.  but thanks for posting.

edit: i fundamentally disagree with Hersh's appraisal of Obama as a "peace candidate".  anyone who thought so, was not paying attention.  it is precisely why i didn't vote for him.  he was for escalating Afghanistan and drawing down Iraq = the same thing Bush was for.

I think with careful analysis of his 2008 rhetoric, one would reach this conclusion. But the American public and indeed the world at large (the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, even)

indeed.  if you recall, even Obama was flabbergasted by it.

more or less had him pegged as wanting to shut down Iraq, wanting to shut down Afghanistan

he actually never said that.  so anyone who thought he wanted that sure didn't hear it from him.

, wanting to prevent future occupations and excursions, but perhaps willing to stay the course for a year or two in some places so that the US could withdraw in an orderly fashion.

Nobody but nobody, including his starkest critics, expected him to roar ahead like a carbon copy of "the decider". Sen. McCain was supposed to be that guy.

impossible to say what McCain would have done.  but i honestly didn't expect any change in foreign policy.  it is the most consistent aspect of the presidency since WW2- across all party lines and political persuasions. 

[billisonboard]

There are actually two separate issues when it comes to Benghazi.  One is the events of September 11, 2012 and the aftermath. The other is what the CIA was up to in the first place.  Hersh is talking about the later.  Republicans want to investigate the former.

Would it have been possible to prevent the attacks?  Sure, dedicate enough resources and you can do anything.  Would it have been possible to dedicate those resources and keep CIA shenanigans undercover?  I doubt it.  Were there steps that could have been taken as the attacks were taking place to save some of the lives lost?  Timelines I have seen suggest no.  Do we want a full discussion of operational capabilities and limitations in an open congressional committee meeting?  Not IM(not so)HO.  Did the White House do a lousy job of attempting to cover up CIA shenanigans following the attacks?  Yes, IM(not so)HO.  I see that as established fact.  Is it a good idea to discuss those shenanigans in open committee hearings which a full open committee meeting would necessitate?  No, IM(not so)HO.  At least not until the US is ready to commit to ending such.

IM(not so)HO:  Is there a need for a special committee to be set up to investigate this?  If it is for the purpose of investigating and curtailing CIA shenanigans in the Middle East, I would support it.  A narrow look at the shitty job the White House did with talking points about the attack does not support the need for a special committee.  Standing congressional committees have done just fine with that: IM(not so)HO 

[djAdvocate]

it looks like the CIA is totally out of control, to me.  they basically constitute a shadow government at this point, accountable to nobody.

we should all be very concerned.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Ah, now I see why your undies were in a bunch DJ...

The CIA responds to TPTB, dj. If you look at Russia and what is going on all over the east, you should by now understand there is a reason for how they operate. No, it's not to take over the US, there are plenty of dictators and extremists out there that would love to do that.

In fact, I would think by now Virgil would understand this better as well. He was very worried about how out of hand the mid east was going to get because of Islamic terrorism taking over the democracy movements back in 2011, and he was right about how tyrannical Putin is.

It's all basically moot now anyway. Everything is set in stone and it's all just a matter of time before we all see how it's going to turn out.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 15, 2014 20:00:08 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Ah, now I see why your undies were in a bunch DJ...

do you?  let's find out.  because i would really love it if you DID get it.

The CIA responds to TPTB, dj. If you look at Russia and what is going on all over the east, you should by now understand there is a reason for how they operate.

oh no, i get that.  the reason is perfectly clear to me.  i am just not a big fan of the methodology.

No, it's not to take over the US, there are plenty of dictators and extremists out there that would love to do that.

of course.  i am sure there are plenty of idiots RIGHT HERE IN THE US that would love to do that, too.  but where we differ is in how much of a threat we think they actually are- and how much of our civil liberties we are willing to give up to "defend" against their tyranny.  i am a firm believer in the edict that he who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither.

In fact, I would think by now Virgil would understand this better as well. He was very worried about how out of hand the mid east was going to get because of Islamic terrorism taking over the democracy movements back in 2011, and he was right about how tyrannical Putin is.

i am sure Virgil can speak for himself.  i don't pretend to know the mind of him or any other poster here, yourself included.  only God knows that, imo.

It's all basically moot now anyway. Everything is set in stone and it's all just a matter of time before we all see how it's going to turn out.

no, it really isn't.  the human experiment is about choices.  we will be judged by our actions, including our complacency in the face of great misdeeds by our progeny or those that find our fossil record in another 60M years.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Ya, you were upset because you thought I was talking about your comment on this thread, which I just got at today. I mean I only have four kids to look after, a house to help keep, and work....

DJ, the past is set in stone, what happens next is an extension of our past. We are being judged right now. With all the warmongering that has gone on since the last WW, from humans all over the globe....

So ya I believe what goes down next is also set in stone because we have made our beds, so to speak. Yes, one day it will be looked back upon without a doubt.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 15, 2014 20:44:23 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Ya, you were upset because you thought I was talking about your comment on this thread, which I just got at today. I mean I only have four kids to look after, a house to help keep, and work....

you're right.  i did.  i was sure you had seen it, but if you say you didn't then i will take your word for it.

DJ, the past is set in stone, what happens next is an extension of our past. We are being judged right now. With all the warmongering that has gone on since the last WW, from humans all over the globe....

So ya I believe what goes down next is also set in stone because we have made our beds, so to speak. Yes, one day it will be looked back upon without a doubt.

i can't stand the idea of fate, Aham.  i find it utterly hopeless.  so yes, i not only don't believe in fate, but i can't live that way.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

*I warned you, Aham.  If you can't leave religion out of your posts, please leave it out of P&M. Otherwise, your posts will be removed, just as this one has been removed.

mmhmm, P&M Moderator

[weltschmerz]

Oh.

I thought the thread was about rats. I like rats.

[djAdvocate]

*Post removed as quoted post has been removed.

mmhmm, P&M Moderator

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

We are talking about the exact same thing dj, the present is an extension of the past and a guide to the future. Always has been, always will be. We are the product of the creator(G-d) You may not believe that G-d cares about our outcome, and that is fine.

I think we have free will and G-d wants us to make the right choices. I believe that G-d has been trying to show us the correct path for tens of thousands of years and 2000 yes ago a very big event happens that made it so we would eventually get there. Again, we will see just how all this plays out, I can guarantee you that.

I would suggest that if you want to avoid what is coming next, you better get out there into central Asia and start solving the FUBAR situation that the central part of the world is. Putin and his buddies that think they are "winning" sure aren't hearing what you're saying.

In fact, Putin is laughing his ass off at the west. I don't have to "know his sole", all I have to do is read the double talk that is coming from the Kremlin to put it together.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Could you move them to the thread you started where this conversation is supposed to take place please, mmhmm?

[djAdvocate]

Aham- i think i am done here.  not going to waste time posting things only to have them deleted.  have a good night.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

No shit hey? Can't even move them, just gone. You have a good one too!

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 15, 2014 22:04:15 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Oh.

I thought the thread was about rats. I like rats.

[weltschmerz]

^^ Awww. What a cutie-pie! ^^